Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 113

Thread: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

  1. #46
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,398

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    "Listen, I'm not pro-Bonds, but I'm also not anti-Bonds. I'm neutral on Bonds, which by default seems to group me in an inaccurate pro-Bonds group. I don't know if Bonds did or did not take steroids so I don't bother with it. I just find it incredibly flawed to claim that Bonds cheats while absolutely refusing to acknowledge that players such as Gaylord Perry or Whitey Ford cheated. Would Perry have given up more than 1,846 earned runs in his career if he never cheated, or would he have given up more?"

    You seem to know a ton about the history of baseball from your hall of fame posts. Just take a cursory look at Bonds statistics after the age of 35 and compare it to ANYONE in the history of the game. You have your obvious answer on steroids.
    This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
    I do think it is cheating, yes. I think it's about on the level of a manager stealing signs from the other team. I don't think anyone truly thinks a spit ball has had any effect on the legitimacy of baseball stats.

    I think it's like comparing me looking at your hand in cards versus me fixing the entire deck to give me a much better hand.

    We have a handful of hall of famers who threw a trick pitch and yet on the other hand we have seen the season home run record fall three times in the course of two seasons and the number of fifty home run seasons represented as many times in the course of one decade as in the entire history of baseball combined and you want to say cheating is cheating.

    I'm wondering if the spitball is so effective, how could anyone hit that many homeruns?

    If all one had to do was throw spitters to win 300 games, people would be doing that instead of taking steroids. It would be safer and would get you less time on a suspension.
    Dom, sorry but history doesn't exactly parallel what you're claiming here.

    Code:
    Year     AL ERA
    1905      2.65
    1906      2.69
    1907      2.54
    1908      2.39
    1909      2.47
    1910      2.52
    
    --- Lively ball introduced
    
    1911      3.34
    1912      3.34
    
    --- Doctored pitches begin to be more commonly used to fight off the lively ball effect
    
    1913      2.93
    1914      2.73
    1915      2.93
    1916      2.82
    1917      2.66
    1918      2.77
    1919      3.22
    
    --- Doctored pitches rendered illegal
    
    1920      3.79
    1921      4.28
    1922      4.03
    1923      3.98
    1924      4.23
    1925      4.40
    The average AL ERA from 1905-1910 was 2.54. The introduction of the lively ball in 1911 pushed ERAs up to 3.34 for two seasons, however, pitchers fought back and began throwing even more doctored pitches than ever to offset the introduction of the lively ball. The result was that from 1913-1919 the average AL ERA was back down to 2.87. In February, 1920, doctored pitches were declared illegal (except for a handful grandfathered to continue using it), umpires were ordered to maintain clean balls in play and the AL average ERA jumped up to 4.12 over the next six seasons. That's over a 40 percent increase in AL ERA.

    Seems like a rather steep jump in sudden offense that coincidentally just so happens to occur immediately after all forms of doctored pitches are outlawed.

    Since you were the one equating all types of cheating, let me turn the question around on you:

    If you were a young pitcher trying to improve your performance by giving it an unnatural edge, which would you choose, ingesting steroids or learning how to throw a spitter?

    Which do you think would give you the best chance of success?

    Using your logic, each should provide an equal amount of success, yet there is no way you can answer with a straight face that you would master the spitball in lieu of taking SEDs and come up with the same results.
    Knowing how much pitchers DOMINATED before 1920, I'd be putting everything I possibly could on the ball well before considering injecting myself with a drug. People act as if the recent level of offense is unprecedented; it isn't. In the 1920s and 1930s, directly after doctored pitches were outlawed, offense was at an all-time high. The entire NL in 1930 batted .303/.358/.448 and scored 5.68 runs per game. Is it merely coincidence that the highest scoring period in the history of baseball occurred in the two decades immediately after outlawing doctored pitches?

    Because Bonds used steroids, he doesn't get the opportunity to turn this around on us like you are doing. One doesn't get to cheat on the level at which he did and then shift the burden of the argument on us to say, well I cheated but if you can't tell me when it started, then I'm innocent.

    It doesn't matter when he started- he was on them by his own account, and if you want to believe that he did it accidentally, then you are entitled to your opinion.

    If it was sometime midway through his career versus early, what does it matter?
    Dom, I hope you're not looking for an argument more than a simple debate ... but ...

    I've already plainly stated that I'm neutral on Bonds. I'm not pro-Bonds, nor am I anti-Bonds. I do not know if Bonds used steroids, and I will not claim to know one way or the other. I want to know when you believe Bonds started on the juice because I'd like to know which of Bonds' seasons you consider legit and which you don't.
    Last edited by Cyclone792; 01-17-2006 at 12:20 AM.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  4. #48
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric
    You seem to know a ton about the history of baseball from your hall of fame posts. Just take a cursory look at Bonds statistics after the age of 35 and compare it to ANYONE in the history of the game. You have your obvious answer on steroids.
    What may be the obvious answer to me may not be the obvious answer to somebody else. :
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  5. #49
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,016

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Just take a cursory look at Bonds statistics after the age of 35 and compare it to ANYONE in the history of the game. You have your obvious answer on steroids.
    That just makes him an anomoly, before him Ruth and Wiliams AND Aaron were the anomolies.

    There has to be harder evidence than that IMO.

    Code:
    CAREER
    AGE BETWEEN 35 AND 40
    AT BATS >= 2000
    
    OPS                             DIFF   PLAYER   LEAGUE     AB     
    1    Barry Bonds                .533    1.312     .779     2164   
    2    Ted Williams               .366    1.102     .737     2209   
    3    Babe Ruth                  .343    1.116     .772     2405   
    4    Hank Aaron                 .259     .977     .718     2739   
    5    Edgar Martinez             .189     .963     .774     2909   
    6    Tris Speaker               .173     .945     .772     2742   
    7    Cy Williams                .172     .930     .758     2473   
    8    Ty Cobb                    .169     .942     .773     2845   
    9    Willie Stargell            .163     .883     .721     2091   
    10   Andres Galarraga           .160     .931     .771     2674

  6. #50
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,398

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    WOY- I would agree usually. But the sheer increase in his numbers and the absolutely incredible numbers compared to anyone else after 35 and it's pretty close to a sure thing. Just my opinion.
    This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.

  7. #51
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,756

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    I have some "circumstantial evidence"...

    * Many people who have seen Bonds hanging at BALCO.
    * Gary Sheffield's words reagrding Bonds and his BALCO cream, etc.
    * The words of Barry's mistress.

    I understand when people say there is not enough evidence. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. This evidence is not as damning as a failed drug test or a confession from Barry. But we must remember that we are not talking a court of law (ask Pete Rose). This is a sports game and the fans of the game are allowed to make judgments as they see fit. Barry may not fail a urine test, but he has failed the test given by many in the public. And for that he will forever carry the scarlett letter of many people saying he cheated.

    BALCO & BONDS. Say them together enough and that start sounding rhythmic and they sound as one-word. No shock there.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  8. #52
    Potential Lunch Winner Dom Heffner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    6,092

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    In February, 1920, doctored pitches were declared illegal (except for a handful grandfathered to continue using it), umpires were ordered to maintain clean balls in play and the AL average ERA jumped up to 4.12 over the next six seasons. That's over a 40 percent increase in AL ERA.
    You see, now we are talking about two different things. You and I were talking about Gaylord Perry, not the entire pitching staffs of all major league teams from the early 1900s being allowed to throw dirty balls pitch after pitch.

    I wasn't arguing that if baseball permitted the doctoring of the ball it would have no effect.

    I'm saying under the current rule system, which Perry pitched under, it simply isn't that effective, and here's why.

    First of all, Perry never threw a spitter when it was legal, and that makes all the difference in the world when comparing him with another era.

    Secondly, in the doctored ball era, these guys were using balls that were allowed to remain in play after they had been damaged and discolored by ordinary use.

    Perry did not pitch under these conditions.

    Since the spitter was illegal when he played, the umpires were ruling under different circumstances than in the early 1900s: the balls used would have been clean and they were on the lookout for balls coming across the plate with suspicious movement and discoloration. There is no possible way that Perry was throwing this pitch every single time nor with as much frequency as they did back in the early 1900s when the spitter was legal.

    Knowing how much pitchers DOMINATED before 1920, I'd be putting everything I possibly could on the ball well before considering injecting myself with a drug.
    Again, this simply isn't plausible. The pitchers dominated when the doctored ball was legal, and now it is illegal to throw such a pitch. To think that one could dominate throwing a scuffed ball intermittently is preposterous.

    As well: Not all of, but much of Perry's success came during the "Big Strike Zone" era, which lasted from 1963-1968. Four of those six years he posted an ERA under 3.00.

    People act as if the recent level of offense is unprecedented; it isn't. In the 1920s and 1930s, directly after doctored pitches were outlawed, offense was at an all-time high.
    Well, you see, we didn't outlaw any such pitches in the 1990s, so this isn't the reason it's happening now.

    What was the rule change in the 1990s that allowed for as many 50 homerun seasons in one decade as in the entire history of baseball combined?

    When you have guys like McGwire and Bonds who we can certainly ascertain took steroids (Bonds admitted he took them "unknowingly" and McGwire pleaded the Fifth while under oath) and these guys hit over 70 homeruns in a season, one has to wonder.

    Here's a list of guys who took steroids and won MVP awards:

    Ken Caminiti
    Jason Giambi
    Mark McGwire
    Barry Bonds
    Jose Canseco

    I want to know when you believe Bonds started on the juice because I'd like to know which of Bonds' seasons you consider legit and which you don't.
    I look at this question like the legal system looks at lying under oath on the stand. If I catch you once, I can discount everything you said.

    I don't need to know when he did it and when he didn't, I just need to know he did it once.

    Because Bonds has shown that he cheated, we really don't have to go sift through his career and say, well on this day he was on something, on this day he wasn't.

    The burden does not suddenly shift to the public, it shifts to Bonds, which he is finding to be a rather difficult situation.

    I do not know if Bonds used steroids, and I will not claim to know one way or the other.
    Again, you keep saying you don't know whether he did or not, but Bonds has already told you he did in sworn testimony.

    Do you not believe him?

  9. #53
    Member Jpup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southern KY
    Posts
    6,967

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Do you honestly think it's impossible for a steroid user to pass a steroid test?
    no. of course not.
    "My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton

  10. #54
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jpup
    no. of course not.
    Then Bonds never testing positive through MLB-sanctioned testing is certainly not rock-hard proof that he never used steroids. it just means that he wasn't caught.
    We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

  11. #55
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
    You see, now we are talking about two different things. You and I were talking about Gaylord Perry, not the entire pitching staffs of all major league teams from the early 1900s being allowed to throw dirty balls pitch after pitch.

    I wasn't arguing that if baseball permitted the doctoring of the ball it would have no effect.

    I'm saying under the current rule system, which Perry pitched under, it simply isn't that effective, and here's why.

    First of all, Perry never threw a spitter when it was legal, and that makes all the difference in the world when comparing him with another era.

    Secondly, in the doctored ball era, these guys were using balls that were allowed to remain in play after they had been damaged and discolored by ordinary use.

    Perry did not pitch under these conditions.

    Since the spitter was illegal when he played, the umpires were ruling under different circumstances than in the early 1900s: the balls used would have been clean and they were on the lookout for balls coming across the plate with suspicious movement and discoloration. There is no possible way that Perry was throwing this pitch every single time nor with as much frequency as they did back in the early 1900s when the spitter was legal.
    Using entire league data before and after the outlawing of doctored pitches is key to statistically be able to generate the effect that doctoring the baseball had on league ERAs. It’s a mountain of data readily available and the change in league ERAs directly correlates to the change in rules.

    The mean of AL league ERAs from 1913-1919 of 2.87 compared to the mean of AL league ERAs from 1920-1926 of 4.10 is statistically significant. There’s no denying the correlation.

    Using data from 1905-1935, here’s an approximation of the league ERA increase with each of the three lively era effects included:

    Lively ball introduction: increase of 0.35 ERA
    Doctoring pitches outlawed: increase of 0.50 ERA
    Clean balls instituted: increase of 0.70 ERA

    Without accounting for minor noise, the accuracy of the model is well over 99 percent.

    Of course there’s always minor noise, but when you also consider that not every pitcher who was pitching may have doctored the ball, then those who did doctor the ball likely had an even greater influence.

    Given the data, your previous claims that “I don't think anyone truly thinks a spit ball has had any effect on the legitimacy of baseball stats” is plainly inaccurate and not supported whatsoever by the evidence at hand. There is a strong significant statistical correlation that clearly shows otherwise.

    As well: Not all of, but much of Perry's success came during the "Big Strike Zone" era, which lasted from 1963-1968. Four of those six years he posted an ERA under 3.00.
    Wait, what is that? Much of Perry’s success came from 1963-1968?

    Code:
    Year     Win Shares
    1964         19
    1965          6
    1966         21
    1967         20
    1968         19
    
    1969         26
    1970         24
    1971         17
    1972         39
    1973         24
    1974         30
    1975         21
    1976         17
    1977         16
    1978         18
    1979         16
    1980         11
    1981          7
    1982         10
    1983          6
    If much of his success came from 1963-1968, then tell me why Gaylord Perry’s five best seasons occurred after 1968? Again, you’ve made a patently false claim that’s clearly not supported by concrete evidence.

    Well, you see, we didn't outlaw any such pitches in the 1990s, so this isn't the reason it's happening now.

    What was the rule change in the 1990s that allowed for as many 50 homerun seasons in one decade as in the entire history of baseball combined?
    • Expansion of four teams
    • The arrival of Coors Field
    • I will venture a guess that the average park in say, 1998, was more of a hitter’s park than the average park in 1988
    • Steroids

    I won’t deny that steroids have made some impact on increased run scoring during the 1990s, however, laying onto the implied claim that it’s the only reason is misinformed. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if expansion is the number one factor. I'm surprised and disappointed at the same time that you failed to even account for expansion when asking what rule changes occurred since 1990.

    The park factor effect is an educated guess, though I'd love to see some proof that it's incorrect.

    I look at this question like the legal system looks at lying under oath on the stand. If I catch you once, I can discount everything you said.
    Well, you’ve already stated that you don’t think doctored pitches have any effect on baseball stats, and that’s clearly inaccurate. You’ve also stated that much of Gaylord Perry’s success occurred before 1968, and that’s clearly inaccurate.

    You’ve made two important claims now that have both been determined to be highly inaccurate. If you're making baseless claims, why in the world should I believe you given your earlier baseless claims? I've been asking for evidence that Bonds cheated; you refuse to show it. Before I even bother continuing this discussion, you're going to have to start getting your facts lined up.

    I don't need to know when he did it and when he didn't, I just need to know he did it once.

    Because Bonds has shown that he cheated, we really don't have to go sift through his career and say, well on this day he was on something, on this day he wasn't.

    The burden does not suddenly shift to the public, it shifts to Bonds, which he is finding to be a rather difficult situation.
    I want you to present some actual evidence here, statistically, that supports the fact that Bonds may have used steroids. You’re making claims and have nothing to support them. Why should I believe you? Show me why I should believe you.

    I’m looking for the evidence within his statistics. You’re making a claim based on speculation and circumstantial evidence that he used steroids. If that claim is true, it should show up in his stats.

    Show me the stats. Show me what I should be seeing. And before you say “He hit 73 home runs in one season,” I’ll already tell you that it’s going to take much more than that simple statement. Bonds’ 2001 home run total can easily be classified as a statistical anomaly much the same as Maris’ 1961 home run total.

    Dig deep. Show me that you actually know why Barry Bonds has been such a great hitter throughout his career. If it’s steroids, like you claim, then you should be able to draw up at least a reasonably convincing argument.

    Again, you keep saying you don't know whether he did or not, but Bonds has already told you he did in sworn testimony.

    Do you not believe him?
    Do you have a copy of his sworn testimony? If so, please do share it.

    Nobody else I know has ever produced a copy of any testimony that contained an admittance from Barry Bonds that he used steroids. Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, the authors of the original Chronicle Bonds grand jury stories, have not written anything in any of their stories that is an admittance from Bonds. I invite you to actually email the writers yourself and ask them straight up if they have ever written that Bonds confessed.

    Barry Bonds confessing to a grand jury that he used steroids is a myth, not fact. Claiming that Bonds actually confessed is another inaccurate claim. If you don’t believe it, read the wording of the stories word for word. No language within those stories contains a confession from Bonds.

    What’s the importance of the language of those stories? It blows up your claim that Barry Bonds has shown that he’s cheated. No confession from Bonds = no burden of proof on Bonds that he cheated.
    Last edited by Cyclone792; 01-17-2006 at 05:54 PM.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  12. #56
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792
    The park factor effect is an educated guess, though I'd love to see some proof that it's incorrect.
    For the sake of it ...
    Code:
    [b]Year    Park        PF
    1988   Wrigley       106
    1989   Wrigley       107
    1990   Wrigley       108
    1991   Wrigley       105
    1992   Wrigley       102
    
           Average       106
    
    1993   Wrigley       102
    1994   Wrigley        98
    1995   Wrigley       101
    1996   Wrigley       101
    1997   Wrigley       104
    
           Average       101
    
    
    1988   Riverfront    104
    1989   Riverfront    104
    1990   Riverfront    102
    1991   Riverfront    105
    1992   Riverfront    102
    
           Average       103
    
    1993   Riverfront    100
    1994   Riverfront     99
    1995   Riverfront     99
    1996   Riverfront    100
    1997   Riverfront    101
    
           Average       100
    Both parks selected at random.

    It's amazing how welcoming vast new hitting parks has an effect on long standing parks that remained identical in structure. What used to be hitter's parks in the late 1980s were suddenly neutral parks in the mid 1990s.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  13. #57
    Potential Lunch Winner Dom Heffner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    6,092

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    The mean of AL league ERAs from 1913-1919 of 2.87 compared to the mean of AL league ERAs from 1920-1926 of 4.10 is statistically significant. There’s no denying the correlation.
    I did not deny this. We were discussing Gaylord Perry's use of the spitball, not early 20th century usage when the entire league used them every single day.

    I said that Perry did not pitch when these pitches were legal, so comparing him to that period is statistically irrevelant.

    Perry did not throw a spitter on each and every pitch he threw, nor did he throw them a vast majority of the time.

    Gaylord Perry occasionally using a spitball is not a fair comparison to an entire league that used it all of the time, legally.

    Again- the definition of a spitball has changed, sir. In the early days, a spitball could have been a ball that was used in play after it was spit on, scuffed, and discolored to the point that it looked gray when crossing the plate.

    When the league outlawed them, the balls had to remain essentially white (the lively ball you erroneously refer to) to be kept in the game.

    Gaylord Perry never pitched with discolored baseballs.

    To compare someone that occasionally threw a spitball to an era where it could be thrown all the time, is not relevant.

    If you want to do a scientific comparison, the conditons have to be similar or the results will be flawed, just like your argument.

    Anyhow, your tone has become such that this discussion is over for me.

  14. #58
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,016

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    (the lively ball you erroneously refer to)
    What's erroneous about it?

    It was lively, in 1920 following WW1 the wool used in the ball changed to Australian wool and was known to cause the ball to be able to be wound tighter than before.

    "From my observation and in my judgement the ball in use for the season is livelier than any ball that has been used during all my years in Baseball."

    Charles H. Ebbets 7-1921
    1921 also happens to be the first year a ball cleared the fence at Redland (Crosley Field)

  15. #59
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
    I did not deny this. We were discussing Gaylord Perry's use of the spitball, not early 20th century usage when the entire league used them every single day.

    I said that Perry did not pitch when these pitches were legal, so comparing him to that period is statistically irrevelant.

    Perry did not throw a spitter on each and every pitch he threw, nor did he throw them a vast majority of the time.
    I really only have to know that he used it once ...

    Gaylord Perry occasionally using a spitball is not a fair comparison to an entire league that used it all of the time, legally.

    Again- the definition of a spitball has changed, sir. In the early days, a spitball could have been a ball that was used in play after it was spit on, scuffed, and discolored to the point that it looked gray when crossing the plate.
    1920:

    In event of the ball being intentionally discolored by any player, either by rubbing it with soil, or bay applying rosin, paraffin, licorice, or any other foreign substance to it, or otherwise intentionally damaging or roughening the same with sandpaper or emery paper, or other substance, the umpire shall forthwith demand the return of that ball and substitute for it another legal ball, and the offending player shall be disbarred from further participation in the game. If, however, the umpire cannot detect the violator of this rule, and the ball is delivered to the bat by the pitcher, then the latter shall be at once removed from the game, and as an additional penalty shall be automatically suspended for a period of 10 days.

    At no time during the progress of the game shall the pitcher be allowed to: 1) Apply a foreign substance of any kind to the ball; 2) Expectorate either on the ball or his glove; 3) Rub the ball on his glove, person, or clothing; 4) Deface the ball in any manner; 5) or to deliver what is called the "shine" ball, "spit" ball, "mud" ball, or "emery" ball. For violation of any part of this rule the umpire shall at once order the pitcher from the game, and in addition he shall automatically be suspended for a period of 10 days, on notice from the president of the league.


    Now I could be mistaken if there's been some minor modifications, but as far as I know that rule is still in effect today. If Gaylord Perry is guilty of any of the above, then he flat out cheated.

    When the league outlawed them, the balls had to remain essentially white (the lively ball you erroneously refer to) to be kept in the game.
    1911:

    Ball: Cork-center balls are used for the first time as regulation balls in all games.

    Gaylord Perry never pitched with discolored baseballs.
    If he applied a substance himself, then he pitched with discolored baseballs.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  16. #60
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

    For me, the cirumstantial evidence is far too great for me to honestly believe Bonds has never used steroids. In addition to his tremendous spike in numbers and--until recently--durability, his ties to BALCO, the actions of his personal trainer, the testimony of those close to him, and his own admittance that he "unknowingly" used undetectable steroids (source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...d=1937594)--in addition to his near-superhuman production during an era where steroid use was known to be common, if not rampant--is enough for me to say with conviction that Barry Bonds is a steroid user.

    As such, the discussion shifts away from whether to Bonds was a steroid user, to whether or not he should be allowed into the HoF.

    The argument that "cheating is cheating" regardless of how it is done falls flat, however, due to baseball's own variable penalties for cheating in its various forms. A player who steals signs, for instance, though technically cheating will suffer no repercussions (other than perhaps a beaning his next time at the plate.) A player who uses too much pine tar on his bat or puts spit on the ball may be called out or ejected from the game. A player caught corking his bat, or using a foreign substance on the mound, may face a multi-game suspension. A player who gambles on baseball games risks a lifetime suspension. And so on.

    Notice that the highest penalty for cheating--for gambling--is in place because it calls into question the very integrity of the game. A player or manager who gambles on games--particular his own--raises questions about performance, intent and effort. It throws all results into question.

    Steroid use, likewise, raises questions as to the integrity of the game and its records. Why should Bonds' single season record of 73 HRs be considered legit if he required the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs to achieve it? The same cannot be said for spitball pitchers, bat-corkers, and similar ilk, who cheat on an event-by-event basis.

    As such, I, personally, would never vote Bonds into the HoF--although I admit my opinions on this are just that, my opinions. Others may--and most certainly do--feel differently about such things. And that's probably why guys like McGwire and Bonds will make it in.
    We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25